Cheezy the Wiz
Reaction score
9

Profile posts Latest activity Postings Resources About

  • I'm actually not so much of a constitutionalist as I used to be, I consider the libertarian NAP to be much more useful (Although still not perfectly so as the logical conclusion is anarcho-capitalism which I don't view as realistically possible, so I tend to use a form of basic minarchism instead as an actually possible application of those principles). I honestly think the Articles of Confederation might have been better, although I'd have to parse both documents before deciding. I view the constitution as, nothing more, nothing less, than a weapon agaisnt an expansive, intrusive state. I also think the anti-Federalists were really smart guys. The Federalists, I feel, had too much faith in their Federal government.

    I don't argue that we should do nothing, merely that we shouldn't do things that are bad, even if the results are good. My logic is that even if you help a lot of people with utilitarianism, you're screwing someone over
    Regarding Hitler, I almost think of that whole "And then they came for the communists..." bit, not to imply that communists are as distasteful as Fred Phelps, because they aren't, but I see it as the whole mentality of being willing to go after "The fringe" so to speak, which to me is unacceptable. I may hate it but my ethics require doing unto them as I would have THEM do unto me, and that is to allow them to speak their minds, the fact that they would not actually do the same for me being irrelevant.
    I can't say I don't understand Germany, but that goes back to the whole liberty-security thing. I mean, if we have to silence people to prevent them from "Taking over" are we really much better than them? I don't really subscribe to utilitarianism so I consider the question of "What would happen if we let them speak" mostly irrelevant, until they start actually imposing those ideas, it is an act of aggression against them to use legal forcer against them.

    If Fred Phelps did actually become the President of the USA, I could probably justify assassination, but that isn't going to happen. In his present position (Unless he has tresspassed which I am unaware of) Phelps is not actually aggressing against anyone. He's distasteful, even evil, but he is not actually aggressing against anyone. And so I can't ethically justify any action against him.
    Its not a good thing that they say those things, but I definitely believe they should be allowed.

    Europe seems to me like the model not to copy. I mean, in Germany you get thrown in a cage for five years for doing the Hitler salute or denying the Holocaust, both of which are distasteful but neither of which cause actual harm to other people. (If "Being offended" is a legitimate harm almost anything can be outlawed.)

    Yeah, I do get why they do it, I still consider them less free because of it, however.
    Why were you surprised when I defended the WBC's free speech rights? I mean, we all know they are distasteful, but is support for near-absolute free speech rights really all that uncommon among people you normally associate with?
    I'lll reiterate my apologies for my hijacking of that thread.

    I have something of a gut reaction to not caring much when politicians die. Not out of active malice, its just almost like a "People die everyday, why do we care specifically about the politicians" kind of thing.
    Still have not seen that movie, really need to get around to it. Maybe I'll have some time this holiday break.
    Who was that/which movie was that picture you posted in the thread on dealing with the old leadership after a revolution?
    I was going to challenge you in TraitorFish's thread, then I decided I should just thank you for saving me from the bus. :)
    I think I fancy myself a communist. What would have to happen in order for me to answer questions in the ask a red thread?
    You catch me just as I am logging off. i'll write to you tomorrow or the day after and explain.
    Will do.

    I probably wouldn't attempt it anyways, but was curious whether its safe or not.

    I was legitimatelty surprised that rarer burgers are sometimes considered unsafe but pork sometimes considered safe:)
    Yes, I was aware you could eat lamb "rarer" and would rather not eat it well-done, just like a steak (Or even a hamburger, I know you're "Supposed to" fully cook them but I can't imagine doing it that way unless you kill it with ketchup:p)

    So it is supposed to be cooked well-done, but not necessarily to 170? OK.

    I was a bit surprised that some people were saying pork can be eaten medium-rare, but apparently a lot of people think that nowadays, whether accurate or (Probably) not.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom